Hig High Court
Case Details
RSA No. 993 of 1 of 1997 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 993 of 1 of 1997(O&M) jab State of Punjab Kewal Singh & An & Anr. Versus ..…Appellant lants …Respondents Reserved on: 18. Pronounced on: Uploaded on : : 18.11.2025 on: 19.11.2025 : 19.11.2025 CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG Punjab. Argued by:- Mr. Mr. Munish Gupta, Mr. Advocate for the respondent – plain Advo laintiff *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. Defendant-State of Punjab is in this Defe nt this appeal against the concurrent findings of the Co e Courts below. 2. As emerges on perusal of the en As e g 81 entire record, land measuring 81 Kanal 04 Marla s rla situated in the area of village La ge Lalpura, Tehsil Balachaur, Distric strict Hoshiarpur, bein being surplus land, was allotted to
Legal Reasoning
No.2 d to Gurmail Singh-defendant No.2 (proforma respon spondent herein) under Punjab Util eme, Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme 1973. He got po t possession vide Rapat No.253 da ed in 3 dated 16.03.1977 as recorded in Roznamcha Vakia akiati. Out of this allotted land, de sold , defendant No.2 Gurmail Singh sold 40 Kanal 14 Ma Marla, which is the subject matte atter of present suit (suit land) to plaintiff Kewal S al Singh (respondent No.1 herein) ated in) vide registered sale-deed dated 04.06.1981, on w on which he constructed his reside tube- esidential house and installed tube well. Claiming to g to be in possession since date of aser, of purchase as bonafide purchaser plaintiff sought p ht protection of his possession und under Section 41 of the Transfer o er of JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.19 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 1 of 4 RSA No. 993 of 1 of 1997 Property Act, 18 , 1882. As defendant-State of Pun title Punjab threatened to deny his title and interfered in ed in his possession, so plaintiff fil ation ff filed the suit seeking declaration that he is owner ner in possession of the suit land a nd and any interference on the par part of defendant-Sta State of Punjab is unjustified. He ntial . He also prayed for consequentia relief of permane anent injunction. 3. 4. Defendant No.2 Gurmail Singh/ allo Defe allottee was proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No.1-State of Punjab, w Defe aised b, while contesting the suit, raised various prelimina minary objections. On merits, it wa t was contended that while allottin tting the land to defen efendant No.2, rider was imposed ra 10 sed under said Clause (c) of Para 10 of the Punjab Ut b Utilization of Surplus Area Schem heme, 1973 that allottee would no d not be competent to t to sell his rights in the allotted la d land to any person till he becam came owner or before fore expiry of 15 years from the d he date of possession, whichever i er is later and as the a the allottee breached this condition elled ition, so his allotment was cancelled by the Collector ctor, Garhshankar vide order dat dated 21.03.1983. Said defendan dant denied the plai plaintiff to be bonafide purchase haser and accordingly prayed fo for dismissal of the s he suit. 5. After framing necessary issues and Afte and appraising the evidence led b d by the parties, the t he trial Court found that Gurmail S ail Singh-defendant No.2 was owne wner of the land till th ill the time he sold the same to pl sale- o plaintiff vide duly registered sale deed dated 04.0 4.06.1981 and ever since then, pla , plaintiff is in possession of the sui suit land. Most impo mportantly, the trial Court referre 1, an erred to the testimony of DW1, an official of the d he defendant, who admitted tha ated that in the sale certificate dated 23.11.1978 issue ssued in favour of defendant No.2 G ition o.2 Gurmail Singh, no such condition was incorporated ated that said allottee could not se t sell/ transfer the suit land for an r any specific period. A d. As such, trial Court came to the the conclusion that plaintiff was as a bonafide purcha rchaser having purchased the suit suit property for consideration o n of ₹45,000/- and so d so his possession was protected u ted under Section 41 of the Transfe nsfer of Property Act ct, 1882. The trial Court also relied Ors. elied upon State of Haryana & Ors
Legal Reasoning
Vs. Smt. Savitri D itri Devi & Ors. 1986 PLJ 656, to sup hese support this conclusion. With these findings on the m he material issue, the suit was decre ecreed on 31.01.1994. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.19 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 2 of 4 RSA No. 993 of 1 of 1997 6. The appeal filed by the defendant S The ant State was dismissed by the Firs First Appellate Court o urt on 18.10.1996, affirming the find findings of the trial Court. 7. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent Assa unsel ent findings, learned State counse argued that Cou Courts below have failed to appre sy in ppreciate the entire controversy in tive. right perspective 8. After perusing the record, this Cour Afte n the ourt does not find any merit in the aforesaid conten tention. 9. The courts below have meticulou The culously peeled the layers of thi this contention. Cruc Crucially, the Sale Certificate dated ated November 23, 1978, issued b d by the State itself in lf in favor of Gurmail Singh, did no ation not incorporate the non-alienation clause. The Sta State's own official admitted th this fact during testimony. Thi This omission proved ved fatal to the State’s case. 10. The Trial Court and the First Appe The ppellate Court reasoned that if th f the official documen ment intended for public record and ailed and use, the Sale Certificate, failed to mention the re he restriction, an ordinary purchase haser like Kewal Singh had no mean eans to know of it. Fu t. Furthermore, Kewal Singh testifi fide stified that he had made bona fide inquiries with th h the concerned Patwari before t re the purchase, and the revenu enue record listed Gur Gurmail Singh as the owner. 11. Based on these findings, the courts Base f the urts rightly invoked Section 41 of the Transfer of Prope roperty Act, 1882, which acts as a s Since s a shield for an honest buyer. Since Gurmail Singh gh was the "ostensible owner" cised ner" and Kewal Singh exercised "reasonable care care" in good faith, his purchase f cted se for consideration was protected against the State tate's claim. 12. Adding to the State's predicament Add t and ent was a procedural oversight and an issue of parity arity. The cancellation order of 1983 ssed 1983 was found to have been passed without affordin rding any opportunity of hearing ring to either the vendor (Gurma rmail Singh) or the ven vendee (Kewal Singh), a clear viol tural violation of the principle of natura justice. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.19 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 3 of 4 RSA No. 993 of 1 of 1997 13. There is one more aspect of the Ther the matter. It was revealed tha that Gurmail Singh ha h had sold the remaining portion o on of the land to another individua dual, Laxman Singh, w h, who also successfully sued the The the State on identical facts. The judgment in Laxm Laxman Singh’s favor was never cha r challenged by the State, allowing i ing it to attain finality. lity. In the circumstances, the Stat rsue State can not be allowed to pursue the same legal a gal argument against Kewal Singh, the gh, when it had acquiesced in the parallel suit. 14. Thus, looking from any angle, the Thus the present appeal is found to b o be devoid of any m y merit, as there is no scope to to disturb the concurrent finding dings recorded by the the Courts below, which are fo found to be based upon prope oper appreciation of of legal and factual position. Th . The instant appeal is accordingl ingly dismissed. The he initial decree declaring Kewal er in wal Singh as the lawful owner in possession, prote rotected under Section 41 of the T he Transfer of Property Act, 1882 82 is upheld, dismissin rely. issing the State’s challenge entirely. 19.11.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.19 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 4 of 4